Richard lll : The King in the Carpark C4 Monday

Richard III would undoubtedly have remained buried under a car park until Tesco shoved a load of £££ in the direction of Leicester City Council to secure planning permission for yet another Super or convenience store

I can't believe that they were allowed to dig up a local authority/social services car park like that. Where on earth did the poor hard working staff park during their work hours (i.e. 11-12 and 2-3 (2:30 on a Friday))?

They could have allocated some spaces in another city centre car park.

That is a really nice way to put it. I have joined in with the micky taking here but - I admit you are absolutely right. Richard, whatever historians may say, was human and whenever you see historical human remains exhumed from some place in other docus there is a sense of respect (in fact the professor who recreated his face was on a series where they built the faces of anonymous people and it was always a hushed moment of reverence when the "person" was revealed). Philippa really saw her beloved Richard in those bones, that was for a scientist difficult to empathise with.

It is interesting that many Ricardians are women. They fall in love with the idea that a good king should be so terribly maligned and have mud splattered all over his reputation when actually he was innocent. It's the mother instinct probably but the borderline mother / lover thing is phenomenal. They love him, want to protect him, want to resurrect his good name. Cry tears over him. It has a life of its own this thing.

Although I agree with this mostly, the bit in bold reminds me of women who marry men on death row. They know he's supposed to have done bad things, but he's innocent/redeemed/misunderstood etc. Like Richard, they are completely inaccessable, and so are not going to come along and destroy any illusion built up around them.

Has anyone explained why the remains were only one foot deep? Or why if so shallow they did not surface before?

One of many real mysteries which the documentary ignored in favour of endless obviously staged emoting from the estimable Phillipa. If the body was only 5 feet or so down, with the toings and froings on the site over 500 years, it is quite incredible that only the feet apparently got disturbed/dug up over that time.

Pure conjecture on my part, but the apparent lack of disturbance of the body suggests at least in the period from the demolition of the monastery (usually the wood and stones would be recycled in other building work) to the large scale development of the neighbourhood in Victorian times, the grave was part of the garden of a substantial house - suggests to me that the grave was known to be there and left alone as such. How that knowledge got lost is a mystery for the ages, I suppose.

As to the two major developments as described in the wikipedia entry on Grey Friars, the 19th century development and particularly the 1930s building of the then County Council offices, I can only think it was dumb luck or very shallow foundations!

One of many real mysteries which the documentary ignored in favour of endless obviously staged emoting from the estimable Phillipa. If the body was only 5 feet or so down, with the toings and froings on the site over 500 years, it is quite incredible that only the feet apparently got disturbed/dug up over that time.

Pure conjecture on my part, but the apparent lack of disturbance of the body suggests at least in the period from the demolition of the monastery (usually the wood and stones would be recycled in other building work) to the large scale development of the neighbourhood in Victorian times, the grave was part of the garden of a substantial house - suggests to me that the grave was known to be there and left alone as such. How that knowledge got lost is a mystery for the ages, I suppose.

As to the two major developments as described in the wikipedia entry on Grey Friars, the 19th century development and particularly the 1930s building of the then County Council offices, I can only think it was dumb luck or very shallow foundations!

As with any Medieval church there were a large number of graves, they would have known there were graves there but avoided disturbing them unnecessarily for a range of reasons. If there was a garden the feet could have gone when something was planted, they would have just have been a few more bones of many found in the area.

As with any Medieval church there were a large number of graves, they would have known there were graves there but avoided disturbing them unnecessarily for a range of reasons. If there was a garden the feet could have gone when something was planted, they would have just have been a few more bones of many found in the area.

I'll buy that.

Expect that if there are more excavations on the site then a jumble of bones and perhaps even bodies that would have been buried in coffins should emerge. If there are very few bones from the site - i.e it was disturbed regularly over the centuries after the monastery was demolished, my "they knew it was there all along" conspiracy theory holds water!

Although I agree with this mostly, the bit in bold reminds me of women who marry men on death row. They know he's supposed to have done bad things, but he's innocent/redeemed/misunderstood etc. Like Richard, they are completely inaccessable, and so are not going to come along and destroy any illusion built up around them.

Good point ..I imagine that is part of the fantasy. If he came back from the dead and said, forget it sisters, I did all of those awful things - who knows if maybe some of them would fall "out of love" with him.. I mean, confirmation of the crooked back did seem to throw Philippa.

Good point ..I imagine that is part of the fantasy. If he came back from the dead and said, forget it sisters, I did all of those awful things - who knows if maybe some of them would fall "out of love" with him.. I mean, confirmation of the crooked back did seem to throw Philippa.

Perhaps you missed the show - it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard had nothing to do with the deaths of the little Princes. As the reconstruction of his face showed, he did not have the face of a tyrant. Case closed.

Perhaps you missed the show - it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard had nothing to do with the deaths of the little Princes. As the reconstruction of his face showed, he did not have the face of a tyrant. Case closed.

Did it? Must have missed that bit. From what I saw it is still an open verdict.

Not to Philippa it wasn't; her expert opinion was that the reconstructed face was most certainly 'not the face of a tyrant'. We can now rest easy in the safe knowledge that the much maligned Richard III doesn't look like a villain so can't have been a villain.

I assume she feels much the same about cuddly old Uncle Stalin. The debates about Lizzie Borden can also be put to bed - look at her:

Not to Philippa it wasn't; her expert opinion was that the reconstructed face was most certainly 'not the face of a tyrant'. We can now rest easy in the safe knowledge that the much maligned Richard III doesn't look like a villain so can't have been a villain.

I assume she feels much the same about cuddly old Uncle Stalin. The debates about Lizzie Borden can also be put to bed - look at her: